In a significant legal development on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, the Supreme Court of India strongly criticized the Patna High Court for a recent judgment. The High Court had determined that the actions of removing a woman’s traditional lower garment, a salwar, and pressing her chest were not enough to legally prove a formal attempt to commit rape.

A high-level judicial Bench, consisting of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant alongside Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, formally addressed the matter. The top court intervened after two senior advocates, Shobha Gupta and H.S. Phoolka, brought the controversial ruling to the Bench's immediate attention.

During the proceedings, Justice Mohana raised a critical question regarding whether judicial precedents on gender sensitivity are being properly implemented. Specifically, the Justice asked if a past Supreme Court judgment concerning a highly similar Allahabad High Court matter—which explicitly ordered the comprehensive sensitization of judges on these precise issues—had been formally cited during the arguments at the Patna High Court.

This line of questioning follows a clear historical pattern. The Supreme Court had previously taken suo motu cognisance—an independent action taken by the court on its own accord—regarding a March 17, 2025, order issued by the Allahabad High Court. In that earlier 2025 case, the lower court had similarly ruled that pulling a girl’s pyjama string and grabbing her breasts did not legally constitute an attempt to rape. The Supreme Court decisively stepped in to set aside and cancel that specific High Court order.

While the supreme judiciary was actively addressing that broader systemic issue, an official report was compiled by the National Judicial Academy Committee. This extensive report focused directly on improving judicial sensitivity when handling complex sexual offence cases. In light of the recent Patna High Court ruling, the Supreme Court issued a new directive ordering that this sensitivity report be immediately uploaded to the official websites of the Supreme Court as well as all high courts across the country.

Simultaneously, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant placed a strong emphasis on the professional accountability of the judiciary, stressing that there is a clear duty cast on judges as well to do some research. Expressing clear dissatisfaction with administrative support, the Chief Justice remarked, "The staff is doing nothing," while taking the firm step of directing all courts and local police stations to strictly follow the established legal handbook.

"It is directed that all courts shall follow the expression contained in the handbook. States to issue instructions to all police stations to follow the handbooks while registering FIR and filing a chargesheet. We will upload a reasoned judgment also," the Chief Justice announced. Senior lawyer Shobha Gupta further pointed out to the Bench that problematic judicial decisions like the one recently observed in the Patna High Court have unfortunately been happening frequently across the legal system.

Patna High Court decides removing woman’s salwar, pressing chest doesn’t amount to rape attempt

The broader controversy stems directly from a specific ruling by the Patna High Court, which officially held that attempting to remove a woman’s salwar and pressing her chest does "not unequivocally establish" an attempt to commit rape. Based on this legal interpretation, the High Court completely set aside the prior criminal conviction of a male studio owner who had been found guilty of attempting to sexually assault a female client inside his photography business.

On July 9, the High Court issued a formal acquittal for the appellant. The court determined that the state prosecution had ultimately failed to legally prove the heavy charges of attempted rape. The ruling observed that even if the prosecution's entire version of the events were accepted "in its entirety", the actions would, "at best", only establish a lesser offence of assault or criminal force intended to outrage a woman’s modesty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Purnendu Singh officially allowed this legal appeal, which was filed by the accused individual, Himanshu Kumar Pathak (also known publicly as Mithiya Pathak), challenging a 2013 conviction handed down by an Additional Sessions Judge in the Banka district.

Looking back at the trial history, the initial lower court had originally convicted Pathak under the severe combination of Sections 376 and 511 of the IPC, which deal directly with attempts to commit rape and the associated punishments for attempting offences that carry life or long-term imprisonment. The trial court had also found him guilty under Section 342 of the IPC for wrongful confinement. For the attempted rape charge, the lower court had sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment along with a financial penalty of Rs 5,000, while adding a concurrent six-month prison sentence for the wrongful confinement charge.

According to the official timeline presented by the prosecution, the criminal incident originally took place nearly two decades ago on January 19, 2008. On that day, the young female complainant walked into Chhaya Studio, located in the Amarpur area, alongside her father to get a photograph taken. The prosecution alleged that the owner, Pathak, used the pretext of viewing the final photograph on a computer screen to ask the victim's father to remain outside the room.

Once the father was outside, the accused allegedly bolted the studio door shut from the inside, actively attempted to remove the woman’s salwar, undressed himself completely, and proceeded to physically molest her. The woman immediately screamed to raise an alarm, which prompted her father to use force to open the locked door. Upon the door being breached, the accused reportedly fled the scene. A formal First Information Report (FIR) was registered with the local police the very next day.

When reviewing the appeal, the High Court pointed out that the prosecution had relied on the statements of five distinct witnesses during the original trial: the victim herself, both of her parents, a formal investigating officer, and an independent witness who later turned hostile by changing their story. However, the High Court highlighted significant procedural gaps, noting that the primary investigating officer who actually completed the core probe was never examined during the trial, and no medical officer was ever brought forward to present concrete medical evidence.

On the legal merits of the definitions of sexual assault, the High Court concluded that there was a total "absence of any evidence of penetration, even to the slightest extent, or any overt act unequivocally constituting an attempt to commit rape". Because of this, the court ruled that the strict legal ingredients required to satisfy Sections 375 and 376, read alongside Section 511 of the IPC, were simply not met.

The text of the judgment observed that the appellant was explicitly alleged to have confined the victim inside the commercial studio space, closed the door to block exit, attempted to remove her clothing, and physically molested her by pressing her chest. According to the written judgment, "these acts clearly establish the use of criminal force upon a woman with the intention, or at least the knowledge, that such acts were likely to outrage her modesty, thereby satisfying the essential ingredients of Section 354 IPC."

Concluding its legal rationale, the High Court judgment re-emphasized that "even if the prosecution case is accepted in its entirety, the acts attributed to the appellant… do not unequivocally establish the commission of an offence punishable under Section 376(1) read with Section 511 of the IPC. At best, the allegations disclose an act intended to outrage the modesty of the victim, thereby attracting the ingredients of Section 354 IPC."